Mounting Losses in Iraq
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A22
When I was in the ROTC program in college, and later in the Army, there was much debate about whether women should serve "on the front lines," or in combat. After women proved that strength and stamina were not barriers to doing so, a major remaining argument was that Americans would not tolerate their coming home in body bags. Somehow, it was more acceptable to have our sons die in battle than it was our daughters.
I couldn't help but think of this as I read the Sept. 27 front-page article "West Point Mourns a Font of Energy, Laid to Rest by War," about the death of 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez in Iraq.
Then I studied The Post's "Faces of the Fallen" and found Pfc. Hannah L. McKinney, Sgt. Jennifer M. Hartman and 1st Lt. Ashley L. Henderson Huff. Sadly, the American public's reaction to seeing our daughters and mothers die in war apparently isn't that problematic after all.
ELIZABETH COX MURRAY
Alexandria
Before Robert Kagan diverged into a Rumsfeldian soliloquy about the unknowable in his Sept. 26 column, "More Leaks, Please," he made a statement of stunning insensitivity.
Mr. Kagan wrote: "Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States."
Tell that to the families of the soldiers killed by improvised explosive devices in Iraq.
TOM TUCKER
Rochester, N.Y.
·
In the late 1940s, as part of a reorganization of our national defense structure, the War Department (which had existed since the beginning of the republic) became the Defense Department.
Perhaps it is time to revert to the earlier terminology, restoring to its leader the title secretary of war.
It would certainly be more accurate.
DAVID RABADAN
Annandale
